From the Departments of Medicine (M.G., C.M.K., M.S.), Radiology (C.M.K., M.S.), and Biomedical Engineering (M.S.) and Cardiovascular Imaging Center (M.G., C.M.K., M.S.), University of Virginia Health System, 1215 Lee St, Box 800158, Charlottesville, VA 22908.
Radiology. 2019 Feb;290(2):317-326. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180226. Epub 2018 Nov 13.
Purpose To summarize the literature by performing a systematic review and pooled analysis of the data, to understand the extent of variability among studies of native T1 and extracellular volume (ECV) measurements, and to identify covariates that account for heterogeneity between studies. Materials and Methods PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched for native T1 and ECV measurements of the left ventricle in health adult study participants. The search terms used were "T1 mapping heart," "Native T1 heart," and "ECV heart." Summary means were generated with random-effects modeling. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the inconsistency factor (I ). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses were conducted to identify etiologic causes of heterogeneity. Results This systematic review of native T1 included 120 articles, with 5541 participants (mean age, 50 years; 51.0% men [2826 of 5541]). The pooled mean of native T1 was 976 msec (95% confidence interval [CI]: 969 msec, 983 msec) at 1.5 T and 1159 msec (95% CI: 1143 msec, 1175 msec) at 3.0 T. I was 99% at both field strengths. Eighty-one articles were included in the systematic review of ECV, with 3872 participants (mean age, 52 years; 50.0% men [1936 of 3872]). The pooled mean of ECV was 25.9% at field strength of 1.5 T (95% CI: 25.5%, 26.3%) and 3.0 T (95% CI: 25.4%, 26.5%). I was 94% and 90% at 1.5 and 3.0 T, respectively. Conclusion The pooled means of extracellular volume and native T1 measurements in healthy adult participants are summarized in this analysis. There was significant heterogeneity found among studies, highlighting the importance of standardized cardiac MRI protocols and the derivation of institution specific reference ranges. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Dodd and Dewey in this issue.
目的 通过系统评价和汇总数据分析,总结文献,了解左心室固有 T1 和细胞外容积 (ECV) 测量值研究之间的变异性程度,并确定导致研究间异质性的协变量。
材料与方法 在 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Central 中搜索健康成年参与者左心室固有 T1 和 ECV 测量的研究。使用的检索词包括“T1 映射心脏”、“固有 T1 心脏”和“ECV 心脏”。使用随机效应模型生成汇总均值。使用不一致性因子 (I ) 评估异质性。进行亚组分析和荟萃回归分析,以确定异质性的病因。
结果 本系统评价纳入了 120 篇文献,共 5541 名参与者(平均年龄 50 岁;51.0%为男性[5541 名中的 2826 名])。在 1.5 T 时,固有 T1 的汇总平均值为 976 msec(95%置信区间[CI]:969 msec,983 msec),在 3.0 T 时为 1159 msec(95% CI:1143 msec,1175 msec)。在两种场强下,I 均为 99%。81 篇文献纳入了 ECV 的系统评价,共 3872 名参与者(平均年龄 52 岁;50.0%为男性[3872 名中的 1936 名])。在 1.5 T 场强下,ECV 的汇总平均值为 25.9%(95% CI:25.5%,26.3%),在 3.0 T 场强下为 25.9%(95% CI:25.4%,26.5%)。I 分别为 94%和 90%。
结论 本分析总结了健康成年参与者细胞外容积和固有 T1 测量的汇总平均值。研究间存在显著的异质性,这突出表明需要标准化心脏 MRI 方案,并制定机构特定的参考范围。
© 2018 RSNA,在线补充材料可在本文中获取。也可参见本期 Dodd 和 Dewey 的社论。